tv [untitled] January 24, 2012 7:18am-7:48am PST
you know, that format is a little bit constrained. i would like to have conversations with those of you here who are open to that. again, i am excited to be part of this. [applause] >> thank you again to all of the variety of members and advocates and developers that are here today. many of you know that affordable housing has long been one of my top priorities. i knew this year that housing would be a big issue. it was not just low-income families and individuals coming to our offices. it was writing e-mails about how hard it was to continue to live here in san francisco when middle income and even middle upper income tenants and residents in the south of market in the mission were e-mail in our office and telling us how tremendously hard it was for
them to remain in the city. i knew this was an issue we would have to begin to tackle. last year ended on a down note with the abolishment of redevelopment where we lost our only permanent stream for affordable housing in the state of california. it is great to be part of a city that is taking a proactive step only a week later to state that we are all going to work together to build housing for everyone in san francisco. i look forward to this work as well. working my colleagues, i know the ones who are standing behind me have also said housing is a priority for them. we need to make sure we continue to keep the city diverse and livable for everyone. thank you. [applause] >> reverence --rev. fong and reverend mckay were here when we started this. we will need your prayers as we
continue forward. rev. fong, i know you have been such a committed person. we ask you to bless us here and encourage us to do well on these efforts. of course, supervisor scott wiener. thank you for being here. supervisor wiener: thank you. i am really excited about what we are doing. what i want to really stress is the critical importance of focusing on moderate and middle- income housing and making sure it does not get lost in the shuffle. we do a lot in this city on affordable housing, and we talk about workforce housing, moderate income housing, middle- income housing a lot. to be perfectly honest, we do not always put our money where our mouth is, and of course, we
need to do more and more on low- income housing, but we have, i think, in the past, sort of but moderate middle-income housing to the side and not really move forward in a substantive way on that. it going through this process, i intend to hold our city accountable to making sure we are actually taking care of our middle income residents and families in this city because we are in danger of falling out our middle-class in this city, and indeed to prevent that from happening. i intend to work closely with the mayor, my colleagues, and the mayor's office of housing to make sure that we are having a hell looked -- housing policy that is inclusive of everyone and that we continue have a thriving middle class in san francisco. thank you. [applause] mayor lee: thank you, supervisor. i know there would be other supervisors that would show up, but for the conflict of interest. i think with this large number of supervisors, there will be
others that will be release supportive of this effort. thank you for being here. i may have been in haste, but i will ask olson lead to come up, who was a designated person to head this effort to. -- effort. >> this is a great day. i think my emotions on this day are so different than december 29. as a former redevelopment deploy e -- employee and going to that website and seeing the supreme court decision and wondering what we will do in san francisco, and coming to this even when the mayor is taking the lead and solving the problem and taking the initiative is just a great, great event. i cannot tell you how much my
colleagues in the state of california are envious. unfortunately, through the governor's decision, there was chaos in the affordable housing community throughout california. this project is a redevelopment project which will not be funded without tax increment, and that tax increment provided $40 million a year towards affordable housing. one of his questions to me was, "what are you going to do now?" i think we have the answer. thank you, for taking the
leadership on this. we now are going forward and trying to create this housing trust fund. we do not have a lot of specifics at this point. that is why we have a working group. we will look at all the possible resources that may go into a housing trust fund and look at sort of the best ideas of other housing trust funds in the country. we will also look at how we're going to use this in a san francisco way. the federal government created a housing trust fund and never funded it. the state government had a housing trust fund program that has really been sort of fair to middling to say the best. we're going to create a housing trust fund in san francisco that once again shows that san francisco is the leader in affordable housing development and finance. i really appreciate the mayor giving me this responsibility to work with all of you, both in front of me and behind me, to shepherd this effort through.
the mayor clearly believes in the big tent. this is probably the size of the first working group meeting. we will look and receive all sorts of ideas because i think we really, truly want to take this opportunity because it is going to be a permanent source. it is not just a one or two-year program. this is a permanent program, and we are going to do it, and we are going to do it right. again, i want to thank the mayor for this opportunity to lead this effort. [applause] >> ok, this one is for mayor lee. it is more of a chart, but it is an illustration as well. "time" magazine said 2011 was the year of the protester, right? i want 2012 to be the year of collaboration and getting it done. this is new. this is different. we are talking about the super
bowl of life. we are in the playoffs already. we need offense, defense, protesters, advocates, a business community, religious leaders. you know, we cannot just pray about it. we have to put some of our money where our mouth is. we need san francisco to pull together to deal with the super bowl of life issue, which is housing. why were people protesting last year? there is no housing. we have to do something. the state let us behind. the feds did, too, but san francisco was going to find a way. i want to give a big hand to the coach, the quarterback. we are calling the play now, right? san francisco, we want to score for affordable and moderate rate housing. thank you. this is a beautiful illustration of that. the one and only rev. dr. mcrae.
a brother, an advocate. he can do better than i could. >> the mayor used the word promise. for many in the religious community, we live with the promise. the promise is that the cities will be repaired and that the former devastation will be reversed. the mayor said we come together because of a promise. i stand with brother roger's. his mother five years and years in this community for the promise -- this project took many years, many iterations, did it not? it took the whole community working together because we believed in the promise that san francisco will be repaired. san francisco will go into the
future, and san francisco will remain a model city for all of these united states. mayor lee, thank you. because you gave us a promise last sunday afternoon that this was going to be an item. before i could almost get home, the item is coming to fruition. because we are taking the first step. thank you. as i say all of the time, maybe lord bless you and keep you. maybe lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. maybe lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, reverend. i know we are on the verge of a very memorable and promise- filled weekend. martin luther king weekend as well where we renew those promises all the time, but in san francisco, it is also about
delivering on those promises. i know we have been delivering on a lot of stuff, not only for investors, but also things that have been working with everybody to produce housing. oz, come on up. >> thanks. sunday, the mayor talked about the really important things in san francisco. he said jobs, jobs, jobs. it is great to read in the paper about salesforce leasing 300,000 square feet. it is great to hear them leasing 300 million square feet. 400,000 square feet translates into 1000 units of needed campus -- needed housing. 2 million square feet is 5000 units of housing. we have an incredibly difficult problem supplying housing. we need 20,000 units of housing over the next 10 years.
at a minimum. more like 30,000 with the growth in jobs if the mayor has his way. this is a very urgent, needed process. i am very optimistic that we will all be able to work together and come up with a program that will deliver housing and affordable housing for san francisco. [applause] mayor lee: let me be it -- let me reiterate by closing that there is no prescribed solution going into this process. we have to be open to everybody's input. i make that commitment that we are going to open ourselves up. there's nothing to say that any idea coming forward cannot be a good one but also be integrated with everybody else's idea. i want to signal that to everyone that is going to participate and watch as this effort continues, but at the end of the day, we have to act, and we have to get an agreement, and
we have to produce housing that is affordable to all in comes in san francisco. we must do that, and we must honor an opportunity that i think the voters are giving all of us, that we have to come up with solutions and come up with them quickly in a timely fashion. with that, i charge everybody here today -- put your best effort forward. be honest. be delivered of. the collaborative -- be deliberative. be collaborative. let's get it done. thank you very much. [applause] >> the meeting is being called
order. please turn off yourself funds and put them on silent. we would like to take an opportunity to thank sf gov tv for all of their constant support. roll call. commissioner adams: here. commissioner clyde: here. commissioner dooley: here. president o'brien: here. commissioner o'connor: here. commissioner riley: here. >> item two. approval of the november 14, 2011 meeting minutes. kraft november 14, 2011 meeting minutes. president o'brien: can i get someone to recommend approval? >> i motion to approve the november meeting minutes. >> second. president o'brien: that was
december? november? thank you. approved without objection. >> item 3, approval of the december 12 minutes. the documents on december 12, 2011. >> i move. >> second. president o'brien: objections? seeing none, approved. >> and general public comment. members can comment on items under the commission's purview. president o'brien: anybody that would like to talk on items not on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on
file # 111331. charter amendment, analyzing proposed legislation in relation to a net job loss. this will amend the charter by adding section 2.118 to require the board of supervisors on limitations of private businesses, require the comptroller to determine if such legislation will result in a net job loss. authorize a small business commission for the board of supervisors consideration, and to prohibit the board of supervisors from taking final action until the small business commission submits alternative legislation or 60 days after the report issues the report. in your binder is the explanatory documents and we have a presentation by jason elliott, legislative director.
gosh commissioners, my name is jason elliott -- >> commissioners, my name is jason elliott from the -- it started as a discussion with the director and with chris, so appreciation to them for months and months ago, coming to us with an idea. the charter amendment that you are considering today and what you have in your blinders is, in principle, what i would like to discuss today. a few minutes ago, we received potential amendments that we are considering making. if i can, we can talk a little bit more conceptually about the idea as opposed to the specific line by line. we are moving away from the exact wording of what is in the packets. but just to take a step back, the idea here that the mayor
made clear in his inaugural address yesterday morning, the number one priority is jobs for all people in san francisco. to that extent, having a smart economic development policy, and innovation corridor through the day and through central market, we have tremendous amount of investments that we are making a citywide. simply put, city government should be a partner in this to create these jobs. jobs of all strata of them, and all skills for all types of keble. city government should be a participant and a partner, certainly never get in the way of what the private sector is doing to move forward on job creation. we have strong ordnances for minimum wage and prevailing wage. we are a city with responsible of employment rules.
to the extent you want to keep creating those jobs, city government should be a partner in that. even well-intention the legislation. even from the apartments, they can have unintended consequences. they are sometimes meaning the destruction of jobs or a net loss of jobs. as the city, when we see legislation like that from ourselves, or from a number of the board, the mayor feels it is very appropriate to take a step back and say that this legislation might fulfill a very important social goals. it also happens to destroy jobs. let's have a conversation very specifically about this question. how does this piece of legislation -- is it worth the- job impact? the charter amendment that we are considering and i will
outline for you, it still allows legislation like that to be adopted. we're not saying that you can never have legislation that the comptroller of fines destroys jobs. it is a case through independent economic analysis, they find it is-jobs. is it worth it? and this commission, and other commissions, other departments will be required to come together and have that conversation to answer that question. some have said in criticism of this that it is all about slowing down the process. in an odd way, i sort of would agree with that. it is about slowing down the process, it means you will bring in voices from this commission, the people of this commission represents, and we can talk about medium and big size programs, we want those voices in the conversation.
there is a consensus process, and everybody gets on board with something. that is great. there is not much more required. to the extent that sometimes a slowing down collecting public input, considering options, those can be positive things as well. it could be people losing their jobs in the private sector. to close on a sort of a preamble here, the mayor made clear that his number one priority is creating jobs, keeping jobs in san francisco. the extent that folks in this building are trying to do the right thing, that is good, that is our job. we should do that and be partners. if i can, very quickly, i didn't bring a copy of this for you because it is still in draft form.
i can just outlined in principle what it does. it includes quite a bit of a process about what happens, and on what day this happens on. the feedback that we got from a lot of corners was that prescribing that amount of process in the charter, who coaches had issues with some of the processes that we set up. in a more overarching thing we heard, it was not on the process. it is a place to set priorities and principles for the city. much like question time that was done to the charter amendment recently, the way that that was done, there was a policy priority set. the mayor should appear before the board. we will leave it to the legislators to work out the details. we have taken very much the same
approach of this charter amendment, and we can't forecast what the best process would be. we can't forecast if this step should come before this that, it is hard to predict those things. we wanted to take a step back and say that in the charter, what we're asking for your support, is requiring the board of supervisors to wait 60 days before adopting an ordinance that may result in significant net loss for jobs in san francisco. simply saying that sometime in the year 2012, 2013, 2012, that the board of supervisors should do what we did at question time, talk about details, work out a process, and that would be through the ordinance. if we set up a process in the charter, we can never change it except for another charter amendment. what if we find out that we need to reorder two steps in the
process, we don't have the legislative flexibility to be able to do that. why don't we do this whole thing by ordinance? that was one of our initial feelings that we wanted to do that, for rules need to be done with the charter amendment. the charter amendment itself, taking a lot of that process out that you see before you, a version we introduced to the board, simplifying its assailants escaped our priority here, to make sure the small business community, the medium business and the big business community can weigh and on legislation if in the controller's calculation, it would mean a net reduction in jobs. under this, the comptroller make that determination and the board would refer it to small business planning, and if there are any
other relevant commissions that should hear it or the board feels like they want to have feedback, it will be an option in addition. to the extent that we have lots of departments and lots of expertise, to the extent that we would want their input on different issues, be it on wage rules or on health rules, or on environmental rules, we would send to those appropriate commissions. leveraging the expertise that we had in the city staff level, really trying to collect that feedback in a legislative way, ultimately, when the board would consider as an alternative to a piece of legislation, that was a charter amendment in a nutshell. i am happy to answer questions. ultimately, we would ask for
your support. this will go to the rules committee, amendments can be made there. as i indicated, will likely be putting forward some amendments. and that will go to the full board and hopefully on the ballot. we would ask for your support as we move through the process. >> commissioners, i wanted to thank the mayor's office for bringing this forward, i think it is an important step for the business community. i am sure we would be able to work out the details, but i think it is a very positive step for supporting an important part of our city. >commissioner riley: this is an excellent idea to give us the time. we did not have the opportunity to see the report, and we have
to make a recommendation prior to outbreak of the small business. i think it is great and i support it. >> i would agree with what -- commissioner adams: i would agree with what commissioner riley said. seeing the analytics after. it is a very important piece of legislation and i support it. president o'brien: i would like to say that when i first heard about this, i was absolutely delighted about it. today, i went back and looked over. we hold the retreat once a year where we hold that somewhere that we are not going to be started. the retreat that we had at the beginning of 2011, one of the items on the air was flagging the concern that we had, we were
being sandwiched by legislation that we felt very strongly was going to influence the small business community. recently, we had a very long drawn-out saga on the health care ordinance. the first original renditions of that was by the mayor and by some estimates would cost the city up to $35 million. which is an example of how important it is to try to get more weigh-in from different stakeholders. it is almost like it is coming full circle to me. i want to give the mansion to the director, to chris for following up on that. the small business commission is a very important function in determining legislation that
goes out there to the city. i am delighted about that. i am extremely happy to see that you have taken the idea of using this as a charter amendment and not as a procedural ordinance. i think that is the right way to do it. possibly evidenced by a recent proposal that supervisor wiener put forward to undo legislation approved by the voters. people said, we don't want you to have that power. this is something that will avoid that down the road. the overwhelming support, the kindness and the objective behind it. if i could, this is a possible action item?